The Munich Higher Regional Court (OLG) has ruled that Judgment of 22.05.2025 - 29 U 867/23 e decided that the FOCUS doctor seals "TOP-Mediziner" and "FOCUS-Empfehlung", which the magazine "FOCUS GESUNDHEIT" awards to selected doctors in return for license fees, do not constitute unlawful, misleading advertising within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

What is the decision about?

The Key question is whether these seals are misleading because they suggest that the award-winning doctors occupy an objectively verifiable top position.

Relevance for practice: The decision affects not only doctors, but also providers of rankings, test institutes, publishers and all professional groups that advertise with quality seals.

History of the decision

FOCUS medical seal of approval Advertising

The Center for Combating Unfair Competition e. V. had sued the publisher of the magazine "FOCUS GESUNDHEIT". The reason was the "TOP-Mediziner" and "FOCUS Recommendation" seals awarded by the publisher. These so-called FOCUS doctor seals can be used for advertising purposes by doctors awarded by the magazine in return for an annual license fee (€1,900 net).

The plaintiff's points of criticism:

  • The seals suggested an objective assessment and thus a top position.
  • The evaluation methodology contains many subjective elements (e.g. self-reports by doctors, patient evaluations and recommendations by colleagues).
  • There is a lack of transparency regarding the selection, weighting and number of evaluations taken into account.
  • The seals are therefore not reliable proof of quality, but are misleading.

The publisher (defendant) defended itself:

  • The lists were based on in-depth journalistic research.
  • The awards are not seals of approval, but editorial recommendations.
  • The methodology is transparent, comprehensible and open to public scrutiny.
  • The advertising with the seal is merely a reference to the listing in the magazine.

The Munich Regional Court I initially upheld the claim. However, the Munich Higher Regional Court overturned this ruling at second instance.

How did the Munich Higher Regional Court rule on the FOCUS medical seal?

  1. No violation of the prohibition of misleading statements (Section 5 UWG)

The OLG Munich clarified:

  • The FOCUS doctors' seals of approval are not "technical test marks", but editorial assessments.
  • The relevant public (patients looking for a doctor) would recognize that it is a result of journalistic research, not an objective quality check.
  • The use of the well-known "FOCUS" logo makes the editorial origin clear.
  • There is no misleading information about an alleged objective top position of the award-winning doctors.
  1. No obligation to disclose all valuation details (Section 5a UWG)
  • Although essential information must be provided, this has been done: The evaluation methodology can be viewed on the website.
  • The fact that individual criteria are not "mathematically" weighted does not prevent transparency.
  • A certain subjectivity is unavoidable in the assessment of medical services - the public does not expect a clinical laboratory analysis.
  1. No misleading by "test seal" in the sense of the case law on product tests
  • The court differentiates between technical test seals (e.g. TÜV, Stiftung Warentest) and editorial recommendations.
  • The latter are permissible if the procedure is serious, comprehensible and transparent - which is the case here.

Conclusion and recommendations for action

For doctors:

  • You may continue to advertise with the FOCUS medical seal "TOP-Mediziner" and "FOCUS Recommendation" in the future - provided that use is based on a regular license.
  • Make sure that you do not use the seal in isolation, but with explanatory information on the methodology. Ideally, you should link directly to the corresponding FOCUS page.

For providers of rankings and rating platforms:

  • Transparent methodology, comprehensible criteria and a credible "sender" (e.g. a well-known media brand) are essential.
  • Make sure your reviews don't come across as objective test marks - clear communication is key.

For competitors and associations:

  • A blanket objection to rankings is not legally promising if they are editorially researched, comprehensibly explained and not presented as a test mark.

If you advertise with ratings or quality seals yourself or offer such a procedure and want to be on the safe side legally, advise The experienced lawyers and specialist lawyers at AVANTCORE RECHTSANWÄLTE in Stuttgart on all aspects of competition law - individually, competently and practically.

We have often dealt with competition law issues relating to advertising with test seals and awards:

Advertising with test result "Excellent" misleading?

Unfair advertising with eBay seal of approval?

Advertising with Stiftung Warentest verdict "good" enough?